Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

12
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
71% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

EMA INFOCA on X

🚨 OTRAS INTERVENCIONES | Seguimos gestionando #Emergencias en #Sevilla : 🔸En #Aznalcázar , monte Cerro Negro: 1 grupo de #BomberosForestales trabaja por desprendimiento en talud de carril de acceso. 🔸En #ElMadroño , monte Cuevas del Moro: 1 #BRICA realiza retirada de pinos. pic.twitter.com/6mVre8nXx

Posted by EMA INFOCA
View original →

Perspectives

Both Red and Blue Teams assess the content as exhibiting very low manipulation, consistent with a routine, authentic emergency service update during a verified storm (Borrasca Kristin). Blue Team emphasizes strong authenticity markers like verifiable details and standard protocols (94% confidence, 8/100 score), outweighing Red Team's observation of mild, proportionate framing (22% confidence, 14/100 score). Overall, evidence strongly favors credibility over suspicion.

Key Points

  • Strong agreement on minimal manipulation: no emotional overload, calls to action, or tribal appeals; purely informational.
  • Mild urgency (emojis, hashtags) is standard and proportionate for real-time emergency reporting, not disproportionate hype.
  • Specific, location-based details enable verification, aligning with official protocols like Plan INFOCA.
  • Timing correlates with documented storm events, reducing suspiciousness.
  • Blue Team's higher confidence and detailed evidence of institutional authenticity outweigh Red Team's cautious notes on framing.

Further Investigation

  • Cross-verify specific interventions (e.g., Cerro Negro landslide, Cuevas del Moro tree removal) against official INFOCA/Sevilla emergency logs or real-time maps.
  • Review the posting account's history for consistency in reporting style during storms.
  • Confirm broader storm impact scale via meteorological reports to assess if selective focus omits significant context.
  • Check for image content in the linked pic.twitter.com to validate visual claims.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
Presents no binary choices or extremes; just status quo of 'Seguimos gestionando' interventions.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
No us-vs-them language; neutral report on teams like '#BomberosForestales' and '#BRICA' without division.
Simplistic Narratives 1/5
No good-vs-evil framing; factual list of locations and actions without moral simplification.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Posted Jan 29, 2026, during Borrasca Kristin storm with floods/landslides in Sevilla (e.g., Aznalcázar rescues reported by Europa Press), making timing organic and event-correlated, not distractive.
Historical Parallels 1/5
Routine emergency dispatch mirrors standard INFOCA protocols, unrelated to propaganda playbooks like Russian IRA or corporate astroturfing.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
Official @Plan_INFOCA post supports no specific politicians or companies; standard public safety update with no evident beneficiaries or funding plugs.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No suggestions of widespread agreement or 'everyone knows'; isolated operational details without social proof claims.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
Informational post during real storm lacks urgency for opinion change, trends, or astroturfing; aligns with organic emergency updates.
Phrase Repetition 2/5
Unique phrasing from official source; related storm reports from local accounts/news exist but lack identical framing or time-clustered verbatim copies.
Logical Fallacies 1/5
No arguments or reasoning present; descriptive list without flawed logic.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts or authorities cited; relies on implied official status via hashtags like '#BomberosForestales'.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
Selects two specific interventions without broader context, but no evident data manipulation in short update.
Framing Techniques 3/5
🚨 emoji and hashtags like '#Emergencias en #Sevilla' frame as urgent official action, with positive 'Seguimos gestionando' implying competence.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No mention of critics, dissent, or negative labeling; purely operational.
Context Omission 3/5
Omits details like incident scale, causes, or timelines, focusing only on current bomberos presence and tasks.
Novelty Overuse 2/5
No claims of 'unprecedented' or 'shocking' events; describes routine tasks like 'desprendimiento en talud' and 'retirada de pinos' without exaggeration.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
No repeated emotional words or phrases; single mention of '#Emergencias' in a factual list of interventions.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage language or fact-disconnected anger; straightforward status on firefighting efforts without blame or hyperbole.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for viewer action, sharing, or response; purely informational update on ongoing work by bomberos.
Emotional Triggers 3/5
The 🚨 emoji and '#Emergencias' phrasing introduce mild alarm to highlight urgency, but lacks intense fear, outrage, or guilt triggers beyond factual reporting of interventions.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Appeal to fear-prejudice Reductio ad hitlerum Doubt
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Analyze Something Else